DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

RECORD OF DECISION for the

Campus Development Project at Fort George G. Meade, Maryland

The Department of Defense (DOD) has published the (Final) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed implementation of campus development initiatives and the construction of associated facilities for the National Security Agency (NSA) complex at Fort George G. Meade (Fort Meade), Maryland, dated September, 2010. The National Security Agency/Central Security Service (NSA/CSS) is a cryptologic intelligence agency administered as part of the DOD. It is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence. For NSA/CSS to continue to lead the Intelligence Community into the next 50 years with state-of-the-art technologies and productivity, its mission elements will require new facilities and infrastructure.

The EIS was prepared to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.c.] Section 4321-4347); the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulationsfor Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508); DOD Instruction 4715.9 (Environmental Planning and Analysis); and NSA's draft National Environmental Policy Act Procedures.

1. Purpose and Need

To meet the NSA's continually evolving requirements, the DOD proposes to develop a portion of Fort Meade (referred to as "Site M") as an operational complex and construct and operate consolidated facilities for Intelligence Community use. The purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide facilities that fully support the Intelligence Community's mission. The need for the action is driven to consolidate multiple agencies' efforts to ensure capabilities for current and future missions as directed by Congress and the President.

2. Proposed Action

The DOD proposes to implement a plan to develop and construct an operational complex at Site M at Fort Meade. Site M consists of approximately 227 acres in the southwestern quadrant of Rockenbach Road and Cooper Avenue. The area presently serves as portions of Fort Meade's Applewood and Park golf courses (The Courses). For development planning purposes, Site M is divided into two portions. The northern portion, fronting on Rockenbach Road and consisting of approximately 137 acres, is referred to as Site M-I. The southern portion, consisting of approximately 90 acres, is referred to as Site M-2.

Development of Site M takes into account several factors, including mission requirements, the condition of current facilities (both on and off NSA's Exclusive Use Area at Fort Meade), space planning, anti-terrorism/force protection, land availability, utility requirements, base realignment and closure actions, traffic and parking changes, and environmental impacts. NSA's Real Property Master Plan identifies movement of its facilities to the interior of Fort Meade to meet new DOD physical security requirements. A key factor driving the site development concept planning is the co-location of mission functions to provide a more efficient and effective work environment for mission-critical functions of the Intelligence Community.

DOD has considered development of Site M under three discrete phases identified for implementation over a horizon of approximately 20 years. Implementation of Phase I is being treated as and would meet the immediate need for the Proposed Action. Phases II and III are being analyzed as alternative development options and are discussed in Section 3 below.

Under Phase I, development would occur in the near term (approximately 2012 to 2014) on half of Site M-I, supporting 1.8 million square feet (£12) of facilities for a data center and associated administrative space. NSA would consolidate mission elements, which would enable services and support services across the campus based on function; serve the need for a more collaborative environment and optimal adjacencies, including associated infrastructure (e.g., electrical substation and generator plants providing 50 megawatts [MW] of electricity); and provide administrative functions for up to 6,500 personnel. This phase would also include a steam and chilled water plant, water storage tower, and electrical substations and generator facilities capable of supporting the entire operational complex on Site M.

Construction of the proposed facilities and the addition of personnel would require additional campus parking. The use of multi-level parking facilities will be considered in lieu of surface parking. The amount of replacement parking needed would depend on the facility alternatives selected.

Since the development of Site M is in the planning stages, no engineering or design work for replacement parking has been accomplished. Therefore, the EIS did not consider various design factors in detail but made general assumptions about the requirements that would be associated with surface parking and parking garages. The exact space requirements will become known as the detailed design process progresses.

3. Alternatives Analysis

An alternatives analysis assists in avoiding unnecessary impacts by considering reasonable and independent options to achieve the purpose and need. In addition to the Proposed Action (Phase I), the alternatives considered include implementation of Phases I and II (Alternative I), implementation of Phases I, II, and III (Alternative 2), electrical generation alternatives, pollution control system alternatives, and a No Action Alternative.

Alternative 1 (Implementation of Phases I and II). Alternative I would include the implementation of the Proposed Action (Phase I, as described above under the Proposed Action) along with Phase II. Under Phase II, development would occur in the mid-term on Site M-I, supporting the construction of an additional 1.2 million £12 of operational administrative facilities, and would also involve demolition activities. The analysis of Alternative I includes Phases I and II combined, for a total built space of 3.0 million £12 for 8,000 personnel.

Alternative 2 (Implementation ofPhases I, II, and III). Alternative 2 would include the implementation of the Proposed Action (Phase I) along with Phases II and III. This alternative would include the demolition of the golf clubhouse buildings. Under Phase III, development would occur on Site M-2 in the long term, supporting the construction of an additional 2.8 million ft2 of operational administrative facilities, bringing total built space to 5.8 million ft2 for 11,000 personnel under all three phases at Site M. It is estimated that one-third of the personnel (approximately 3,630 people) that would staff the new development are already on Fort Meade. The remaining personnel (approximately 7,370 people) would come from positions at other Intelligence Community locations throughout the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area.

Electrical Generation Alternatives. DOD proposes to construct emergency generator facilities to ensure a redundant power supply. Alternatives to supply emergency power that were considered to be potentially viable included stationary internal combustion engines, natural gas-fired combustion turbines,

and natural gas-fired microturbines. The DOD developed seven evaluation criteria to compare alternative ways of providing emergency power. These criteria are (I) proven and commercially available technology, (2) reliable equipment, (3) rapid start-up, (4) sufficient energy output, (5) meets Federal and state environmental regulations, (6) energy-efficient, and (7) cost-effective. For an emergency power system to be considered reasonable, at a minimum it must meet the first five criteria. Furthermore, any alternative that DOD selects would need to comply with Federal policy for energy efficiency and cost effectiveness in accordance with Executive Order (EO) 13221, Energy E;ffident Standby Power Devices, and EO 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental. Energy. and Transportation Management. Only the stationary internal combustion engine generator sets and natural gas-fired combustion turbines alternatives sufficiently met the evaluation criteria and were carried forward for further detailed analysis in the EIS.

Pollution Control System Alternatives. The proposed emergency generators could emit pollutants and have adverse contributions to already poor air quality in the Fort Meade area. These measures are being addressed proactively to avoid, by design, major impacts on air quality; and to identify the most direct way to comply with strict state and Federal air quality regulations in the region. DOD has identified and considered alternatives to limit air emissions during implementation of the Proposed Action. The DOD developed four evaluation criteria to compare alternative ways of reducing air pollutant emissions: (I) potential to significantly reduce air emissions, (2) proven and commercially available technology, (3) energy efficiency, and (4) cost effectiveness. Only the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and Operational Limits alternatives were found to meet the evaluation criteria sufficiently and were carried forward for further detailed analysis.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation. DOD considered other alternatives for expansion of the NSA campus, including expansion to the '"9800 Area" on the installation, redevelopment of the existing NSA campus (e.g., converting parking lots into administrative facilities and other parking lots into multi-level parking facilities), and an alternative location to Fort Meade. These alternatives were eliminated from detailed evaluation in the EIS because they did not fully meet the evaluation criteria defined for each alternative and were, therefore, not considered reasonable for meeting the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

No Action Alternative. Since DOD has identified a need for action (i.e., consolidate multiple agencies' efforts to ensure capabilities for current and future mission accomplishment) that is required to sustain the mission on Fort Meade's NSA campus, it is understood that taking no action does not meet the project purpose and need. The No Action Alternative is analyzed to provide a baseline of the existing conditions against which potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the Proposed Action and alternative actions can be compared. Under the No Action Alternative, NSA would not develop on Site M and would not construct and operate approximately 1.8 million ft2 of administrative facilities. NSA/CSS operations and similar or related operations of other Intelligence Community agencies would continue at their present locations.

Ident~fication of the DOD's Preferred Alternative. DOD's preferred alternative is to implement the Proposed Action (Phase I) to develop "Site M" at Fort Meade as an operational complex and to construct and operate consolidated facilities for Intelligence Community use. Implementation of the Proposed Action would provide up to 1.8 million ft2 offacilities.

4. Summary of Environmental Impacts

The level of environmental impacts potentially resulting from the Proposed Action and alternatives would primarily be dependent on the alternative ultimately selected. Table 1 summarizes the impacts from the

Table 1. Summary of Environmental Impacts from the Proposed Action and Alternatives

Resource Area No Action

Alternative Proposed Action

(Phase I) Alternative 1

(Phases I and II) Alternative 2

(Phases I, II, and III)

Land Use

No impacts on land use would be expected.

Short- to long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on land use would be expected from the reclassification and loss of viable open space.

Short- to long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on recreation would be expected from the conversion of the golf course to administrative functions.

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would be expected from consolidating NSA mission functions.

Impacts on land use and recreation would be similar in nature but greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on land use and recreation would be similar in nature but greater than Alternative 1.

Transportation

Long-term major impacts would be expected due to failing levels of service (LOS) values.

Long-term, minor adverse impacts would be expected due to an increase in failing LOS values above the existing major adverse baseline levels.

Long-term, minor adverse impacts would be expected due to an increase in failing LOS values above the existing major adverse baseline levels.

Long-term, moderate adverse impacts would be expected due to an increase in failing LOS values above the existing major adverse baseline levels.

Noise

No impacts on the noise environment would be expected.

Short-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts from construction activities would be expected. Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts from facility operation would be expected.

No impacts on sensitive receptors outside of Fort Meade would be expected.

Impacts on the noise environment would be similar in nature but slightly greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on the noise environment would be similar in nature but slightly greater than Alternative 1.

Air Quality

No impacts on air quality would be expected.

Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on air quality would be expected from increased air emissions during construction and operation of the generators, respectively.

Impacts on air quality would be similar in nature but greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on air quality would be similar in nature but greater than Alternative 1.

Resource Area No Action

Alternative Proposed Action

(Phase I) Alternative 1

(Phases I and II) Alternative 2

(Phases I, II, and III)

Geological Resources

No impacts on geological resources would be expected.

Short- and long-tenn, minor to moderate, adverse impacts on geological resources would be expected from additional disturbance to soils and increased erosion and sedimentation from construction activities and placement of util ities.

Impacts on geological resources would be similar in nature but greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on geological resources would be similar in nature but greater than Alternative I.

Water Resources

No impacts on water resources would be expected.

Short-tenn, minor, adverse impacts could occur from the potential transport of sediment or construction-related pollutants during large storm events.

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts would be expected from the increase in impervious surfaces.

Long-tenn, minor and major, adverse impacts would be expected from the generation of additional wastewater and the increase in potable water usage, respectively.

Impacts on water resources would be similar in nature but greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on water resources would be similar in nature but greater than Alternative I.

Long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts could be expected from an increase in effluent to the Little Patuxent River as a result of discontinued use of treated wastewater used for irrigation after the removal of the golf course.

Long-term, minor, beneficial effects would be expected from a reduction in pesticide use as a result of removal of the golf course.

Resource Area No Action

Alternative Proposed Action

(Phase I) Alternative 1

(Phases I and II) Alternative 2

(Phases I, II, and III)

Biological Resources

No impacts on biological resources would be expected.

Long-term, minor, adverse impacts on vegetation would be expected from clearing and grading of the remnant forest surrounding the golf course.

Long-term, minor, indirect adverse impacts on wetlands would be expected from a reduction in habitat diversity, shift in species composition, nutrient loading, and modifications to hydrologic regimes.

Short-term, minor, adverse impacts on wildlife would be expected from temporary noise disturbances associated with construction activities.

Long-term, moderate, adverse impacts on wildlife would occur from the potential mortality of terrestrial species during construction activities and the permanent loss of potential habitat.

Long-term, minor, beneficial impacts would be expected from replanting native vegetation.

No adverse impacts on coastal zone management, floodplains, or threatened and endangered species.

Impacts on biological resources would be similar in nature but greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on biological resources would be similar in nature but greater than Alternative I.

Cultural Resources

No impacts on cultural resources would be expected.

No major impacts on any previously identified archaeological or architectural resources would be expected.

No major impacts on any previously identified archaeological or architectural resources would be expected.

Major impacts on potentially historic properties could occur if they were not treated as a design constraint and avoided.

l Resource Area

No Action Alternative

Proposed Action (Phase I)

Alternative 1 (Phases I and II)

Alternative 2 (Phases I, II, and III)

Infrastructure and Sustainability

No impacts on infrastructure would be expected.

Long-term, major, adverse impacts on water supply would be expected from an increase in demand for potable water.

Short- and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on sanitary sewer and wastewater systems, natural gas, and solid waste systems would be expected from an increase in demand for wastewater collection and treatment.

Short- and long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on stann water drainage systems would be expected from construction activities and increased impermeable surfaces, respectively.

Short- and long-term, negligible to major, adverse impacts on the electrical system would be expected from increased energy use.

Long-term, negligible, adverse impacts from the use of liquid fuel would be expected from increased site storage.

No adverse impacts on communications systems would be expected.

Long-term, beneficial impacts on heating and cooling capabilities would be expected from the use of modern, energy-efficient boiler and chiller plants.

-Impacts on infrastructure systems would be similar in nature but slightly greater than the Proposed Action.

Impacts on infrastructure systems would be similar in nature but slightly greater than Alternative I.

Resource Area No Action

Alternative Proposed Action

(Phase I) Alternative 1

(Phases I and II) Alternative 2

(Phases I, II, and III)

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

No impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would be expected.

Short- and long-tenn, negligible, adverse impacts would be expected from generation of hazardous materials and petroleum products and wastes during construction and operational activities.

No impacts from asbestos-containing materials, radon, lead-based paints, pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls would be expected.

Short-tenn, minor, adverse and long-tenn, minor, beneficial impacts would be expected from the remediation of the active Installation Restoration Program site and fonner mortar range training area within the project area.

Impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would be similar in nature to those described for Proposed Action.

Impacts on hazardous materials and wastes would be similar in nature but greater than those described for Alternative 1.

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice

No impacts on socioeconomics or environmental justice would be expected.

Short- and long-term, major, beneficial impacts on the local economy and long-term, moderate, beneficial impacts on local demographic and housing characteristics would be expected from increased demand.

Short-term, moderate, adverse impacts on the Class A Office Space market and long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the school systems and recreation would be expected from increased demand.

Minor impacts on law enforcement and fire protection facilities would be expected from increased response times due to increased traffic levels.

No impacts on minority or low-income populations would be expected.

Impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice would be similar in nature but slightly greater than those described for the Proposed Action.

Impacts on socioeconomics and environmental justice would be similar in nature but greater than those described for Alternative 1.

Proposed Action and each alternative. Environmental impacts would generally be more adverse for Alternatives I and 2 than for the Proposed Action due to the increase in building footprint and the number of additional personnel associated with the alternatives. This summary of potential environmental impacts focuses on those impacts that are considered to be more adverse and limits discussions of minor, adverse impacts (for example short term impacts from site stabilization efforts and construction solid waste generation) that would be expected from construction activities. These kinds of impacts would be expected regardless of the alternative chosen.

5. Best Management Practices and Mitigation Measures

The Proposed Action has the potential to result in adverse environmental impacts. The EIS recommended the following best management practices (BMPs), mitigation measures, and design concepts to avoid adverse impacts to the extent practicable. Unavoidable impacts would be minimized or compensated for to the extent practicable. In accordance with CEQ regulations, mitigation measures are considered for adverse environmental impacts. Once a particular impact associated with a proposed action is considered significant, then mitigation measures are developed where it is feasible to do so.

Transportation

• Contribute to development of a regionwide traffic study to analyze the impacts of future gro\',1h in and around Fort Meade on the regional roadway network in Howard County and Anne Arundel County.

• Support potential on-installation road improvements already identified by U.S. Army:

o Add left turn lanes to selected approaches to the following on-installation road intersections: Ernie Pyle Street and Mapes Road, Cooper Avenue and Mapes Road, Cooper Avenue and Rockenbach Road, and MD 175 and Rockenbach Road/Ridge Road.

o Add right tum lanes to selected approaches to the following on-installation road intersection: O'Brien Road and Mapes Road.

o Add through lanes to selected approaches to the following on-installation road intersections: Ernie Pyle Street and Mapes Road, MacArthur Road and Mapes Road, Taylor Avenue and Mapes Road, O'Brien Road and Mapes Road, O'Brien Road and Rockenbach Road, and Reece Road and MacArthur Road.

o Add traffic signalization to the O'Brien Road and Rockenbach Road intersection.

• Support for recommended road improvements to minimize impacts from the Proposed Action:

o Add tum and/or through lanes to the following intersections: MD ]75 and Rockenbach Road/Ridge Road, MD 175 and 26th Street/Disney Road, MD 175 and Reece Road (MD ]74), MD ]75 and Mapes Road/Charter Oaks Road, MD ]75 and Llewellyn Avenue/Blue Water Boulevard, MD ]74 (Reece Road) and Jacobs Road, Ernie Pyle Street and Mapes Road, MacArthur Road and Mapes Road, Cooper Avenue and Mapes Road, Taylor Avenue and Mapes Road, and O'Brien Road and Mapes Road.

o Add traffic signalization to MD ]74 (Reece Road) and Jacobs Road, and O'Brien Road and Samford Road.

o Add loop ramp for traffic coming from westbound MD 32 to westbound MD 198.

o Add additional lanes for northbound and southbound traffic on MD 295 and eastbound and westbound traffic on MD 32. I.. * •• Contribute to development of mass transit proposals that have been identified by local and state

agencies to address on-installation and regional circulation and connectivity issues.

• Mitigate noise impacts by using the best available noise-control techniques (i.e., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, intake silencers, ducts, and engine enclosures and noise-attenuating shields or shrouds on all equipment and trucks).

• Mitigate pile-driving noise through the use of plywood noise barriers around the site, noise­control blankets, noise attenuation, and providing 30 days notice prior to pile-driving activities.

• Provide specific construction times under the direction of the Fort Meade Garrison Commander due to proximity of residential areas.

Air Quality

• Implement energy-efficient electrical generation and pollution-control systems to reduce air emISSIOns.

• Construction would be accomplished in full compliance with current and pending State of Maryland regulatory requirements through the use of compliant practices or products.

• Implement fugitive dust-control measures (e.g., windbreaks and barriers, control of vehicle access).

• Construction and demolition equipment would be properly tuned and maintained prior to and during construction and demolition activities.

Geological Resources

• Develop an erosion-and sediment-control plan for the Proposed Action as required by State of Maryland regulations.

• Use BMPs as required by State of Maryland storm water regulations to minimize soil erosion, including fencing and sediment traps, applying water to disturbed soil, and revegetating disturbed areas as soon as possible after disturbance, as appropriate.

Water Resources

• Implement nonstructural storm water management techniques per State of Maryland regulations, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver requirements, NSA design standards, the NSA Real Property Master Plan, or as outlined in the Fort Meade Green Building Manual, as appropriate.

• Maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the predevelopment hydrology of the property.

• Establish a forested 100-foot buffer on the western side of Midway Branch within Site M.

• If storm water management sizing criteria are not met through the implementation of Environmental Site Design (ESD) to the maximum extent practicable, structural BMPs would be used and could include storm water retention ponds, storm water wetlands, infiltration basins or trenches, storm water filtering systems, and open channel systems.

Biological Resources

• Use forestry practices to control erosion and sedimentation during clearing and construction activities.

• Conduct selective phased clearing of vegetation to minimize fragmentation and maintain linkages between habitat. Preserve large or historic trees and plant additional trees around them to the extent possible.

• Following construction activities, landscape the project site lIsing native plants where possible.

• Preserve existing wetland areas and follow a wetland area management dual policy of floodplain and riparian area management and in situ wetland management emphasizing preservation and, where possible, enhancement of wetlands.

Cultural Resources

• Treat undocumented cemetery locations as design constraint and fence off known cemetery and archeological site boundaries.

• In the event of an unexpected discovery of human remains during construction, an unanticipated discovery plan would be implemented.

Infrastructure and Sustainability

• To promote sustainability, the following practices could be employed: construction of green roofs, retention of storm water for alternative uses, water use reduction measures, use of energy­efficient equipment, use and purchase of renewable energies, and purchase of locally produced materials. Sustainability features would be incorporated to meet LEED Silver requirements.

Hazardous Materials and Waste

• Preparation of a health and safety plan by the contractor prior to commencement of construction and demolition activities.

• If contamination is encountered, the handling, storage, transportation, and disposal activities would be conducted in accordance with appropriate regulations.

• All permanent storage tanks would be used with appropriate BMPs, such as secondary containment systems, leak detection systems, and alarm systems, and adhere to the NSA's Hazardous Materials Management Program to ensure that contamination from a spill would not occur. If a spill occurs, NSA's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan outlines the appropriate measures for spill situations.

• Establish and implement a recycling program for materials in the construction phase of the project.

6. Decision

Based on the above information and as supported by the analysis in the EIS, I have decided to implement the Preferred Alternative on Site M. I have considered the results of the analyses presented in the EIS, supporting studies, and comments provided during fonnal comment and review periods. These factors, and the description of the purpose and need for the Proposed Action, guided my decision on whether to

approve the selected alternative. I gave special consideration to the effects of the Proposed Action on transportation, noise, air quality, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and infrastructure and sustainability. The chosen alternative's implementation approach will offer siting flexibility that will help mitigate or minimize the potential for environmental impacts. I also took into account the fact that the No Action Alternative would not meet DOD's purpose and need for the Proposed Action. Because Alternatives I and 2 have long-term horizon years, should their components, Phases II and 111, become feasible development options for expansion beyond the Proposed Action (Phase I) in the future, they would undergo separate detailed NEPA evaluation at that time to allow for use of better­known future basel ine conditions and project specifications for those phases. On the basis of this review, I have detennined that implementing the Preferred Alternative reflects a proper balance between initiatives for protection of the environment, appropriate mitigation, and actions to achieve DOD requirements. Consistent with this decision, the Proposed Action, and analyses described in the EIS, DOD will implement Phase I ofthe campus development project on Site M by incorporating:

• Land Use Planning. Development will occur in the near term (approximately 2012 to 2014) on Site M, supporting 1.8 million ft2 of facilities, to be located within the Site based on factors of topography, constructability, and site analysis .. NSA will consolidate mission elements, which will enable services and support services across the campus based on function; service the need for a more collaborative environment and optimal adjacencies, including associated infrastructure; and provide administrative functions for up to 6,500 personnel. Development will also include a steam and chilled water plant, water storage tower, and electrical substations and generator facilities capable of supporting the operational complex on Site M.

• Operational Complex - Principal Facilities. Office modules and an operations center will be developed to provide approximately l.8 million ft2 of space. The office modules would include supporting electrical, mechanical, fire protection/suppression, and security components. Initial operational capability would provide workspace for approximately 6,500 personnel in an open environment conducive to both physical and virtual collaboration. Access between the office modules may be included. The module interconnections will provide shared special purpose space for continuously secure operations. A data center will be constructed to provide computational, data storage, and analytical support.

• Operational Complex - Supporting Facilities. Facilities supporting the data center will include electrical substations and generator plants (providing 50 MW of service); chiller plants; boiler plants; ancillary parking; site improvements; water storage; water, gas, and communications services; paving, walks, curbs, and gutters; storm water management; and security systems.

• Electrical Generation. Stationary internal combustion or natural gas-fired combustion turbine emergency generator facilities will be developed to ensure a redundant power supply.

• Pollution Control Systems. A combination of SCR and operational limits will be considered as a means to reduce air pollutant emissions.

Relevant Decision Factors. The decision factors for this Proposed Action included minimizing- mission impacts, maximizing use of existing infrastructure, minimizing impacts on environmentally sensitive areas and sensitive surrounding land uses, optimizing the timeline for implementation, and minimizing cost. My decision to adopt the Preferred Alternative is based on my view that this alternative is, on balance, the environmentally preferable course compared to other alternatives. The No Action Alternative might be the most environmentally preferable, but does not meet the purpose and need of the Proposed Action. Consideration of the impacts on traffic and attendant costs to relieve congestion are substantial components of my decision. With respect to these, the Preferred Alternative for campus development provides the best solutions for approximately 6,500 personnel for the installation.

Mitigation. The DOD is committed to continuing to work with the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), Anne Arundel County, Howard County, Prince George's County, and local stakeholders to conduct further studies to minimize impacts to the transportation network as a result ofthe Proposed Action and to supporting the transportation improvement projects identified in Section 5 and as appropriate. Pending the availability of funding, the DOD will adopt the remaining BMPs and mitigation measures identified in Section 5 to reduce the short- and long-term, adverse impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Action.

KEIrk::£J!fd--------­ DATE General, U. S. Army Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service